mUltimate Chopin

Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 1-2

composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

 in A

 in FE (→EE,GE1no2,GE1op→GE2op→GE3op)

 in GE2no2
..

Shifting the  hairpin so that it starts from an upbeat, is, according to us, rather an inaccuracy of the engraver of FE, hence, in the main text we give the undoubtedly authentic sign of A. However, since an alternative possibility of Chopin's proofreading in FE cannot be entirely excluded, the version of FE, repeated in all remaining editions except for GE2no2, can be considered to be a potentially authentic variant. In turn, shortening the sign in GE2no2 is undoubtedly a revision, as a part of which the  signs in all analogous bars were unified (bars 1-2, 5-6, 17-18 and 21-22).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 3-8

composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

Different length  in A

Longer  in FE (→GE,EE)

Shorter  suggested by the editors
..

In the main text we unify the reach of the  hairpins in bars 3-4 and 7-8, following three out of four signs written in A. In FE1 the signs were unified too, however, it was the sign beginning slightly earlier in bar 4 that was adopted as the model.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 13

composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

 in A (probable interpretation) & GE2no2

 in A, possible interpretation

 in FE (→EEC,GE1no2,GE1op→GE2op→GE3op)

in EEW
..

The range of the  hairpin written in A is unclear – the top arm seems to be much longer than the bottom one. The respective sign in FE (→EEC, the majority of GE) perhaps corresponds to the range of the bottom arm of the hairpin of A. In the main text, we suggest an averaged range of the sign, which then leads to the topmost note of the melody; a similar length of the sign is also – as a result of revision – in GE2no2. Alternatively, one can take into account the top arm, written probably first – such a longer hairpin determines the peak of crescendo practically at the beginning of the next bar. The lack of continuation of the sign in bar 13 in EEW results almost certainly from the division into great staves – in this edition bar 13 opens a new line.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in A

b. 17-18

composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

 in A (→FE→EE,GE1no2,GE1op→GE2op→GE3op)

Shorter  in GE2no2
..

The  hairpin in A is slightly longer than in bars 1-2 and 3-4, which was reproduced in all editions except for GE2no2. In the latter, the signs are clearly shorter in all analogous bars.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions

b. 19-24

composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

2 different length  in A

2 longer  in FE (→GE,EE)

4 shorter  suggested by the editors
..

The absence of the  signs in bars 19-20 is to be considered to be rather an inaccuracy of notation – admittedly, Chopin would sometimes omit indications (e.g. pedalling) in fragments that had already appeared with indications, yet the presence of the hairpin in bars 23-24 points to an oversight of the composer. The conclusion is confirmed by the signs added in the proofreading of FE in bars 147-148, based on the same notation of A. The range of the signs in bars 23-24 can also raise certain doubts – particularly the sign in bar 24 is clearly longer than the previous. According to us, it is more likely that Chopin wrote the signs more diligently for the 1st time – see bars 3-8. We also consider that the slightly shorter signs leave more possibilities of interpretation of this motif, whose performance – according to relations of one of the pupils, Wilhelm von Lenz – posed quite a performance challenge: "It was difficult to please Chopin in this Waltz. Only he was able to [correctly] combine the only (!) semiquaver in the third bar with the following crotchet." 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins